[HPforGrownups] Re: Ending the series (was Dept. of Mysteries, "Love" room.)

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

No: HPFGUIDX 130379

Alisha:
> Wow, that really got my defenses up, so I'll try to keep calm about
> this.

First off, kudos for a temper well kept.  ^_^

> I never said that happy endings made the difference between
> fiction and literature.  I said that literature tells us what we
> need to hear as opposed to what we want to hear.

This is quite a strong, yet somewhat ambiguous, statement, and I was 
wondering if you could elaborate on why you think this is the case.  
I'm a little opposed to the idea of a clear demarcation between fiction 
and "literature", anyway (although I certainly admit that there are 
specific examples which fall pretty clearly to one side of the 
spectrum), and I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here.  
How do we differentiate between what we "need" and what we "want" in 
fiction?  If, as you seem to imply further into your argument, we 
sometimes "need" positive messages as much as negative ones, who is to 
say Harry Potter cannot be an example of such? (Sorry if I've 
misinterpreted your position.)

While I think "telling" the reader something is an integral part of 
literature as a whole, I disagree that the quality of the message is a 
good measure of the difference between classic "literature" and mere 
"fiction".

> Sometimes we need
> to hear that Elizabeth Bennet, for all her poor upbringing and
> uncouth family, wins the heart of Darcy and goes on to do great and
> noble things with her new position.

And, sometimes, don't we also need to hear that an orphaned boy, 
saddled with abusive caretakers, a dire prophecy, and an immortal 
nemesis can't find peace and happiness and family somewhere down the 
road?  I'm being a bit facetious here, but this message boils down to a 
universal "truth" in literature:  the downtrodden *do* have hope.

> Sometimes we need to know that
> good people have good things happen to them.

So why not Harry Potter?

>  And sometimes it's
> true, that does happen.  However, a happy ending does not
> necessarily make a good ending.  Harry Potter's story is a
> distinctly moral story (not religious, not allegorical, just
> moral).  Therefore it is necessary that Good triumph over Evil in
> the end.  It is not, however, necessary that Harry lives and
> Voldemort dies.

I agree wholeheartedly, but I disagree that the reverse is necessarily 
true.

> Think of Hamlet (depressing, I know).  Hamlet
> doesn't survive the story, but he takes down his unscrupulous mother
> and his villainous uncle before he goes.  That's what's important.
> JKR may be able to tell her story without having Harry die.  That
> would work.

I still agree. (Wow, we're on a role here.) ^_^

> It would also work to have Harry die to show that
> sacrifice is sometimes necessary for victory.  I do think, however,
> that even if Harry lives, it won't be the happy ending most children
> are expecting.  If JKR is to make this story believable and real,
> then Harry will never be the same again.  We won't ever see that
> happy, healthy boy we met on the train to Hogwart's.

. . . Aaaand, here's where I balk.  First of all, Harry wasn't really 
happy or healthy when we met him, was he?  He was supressed, 
half-starved, un-loved,  &c.

In some ways, I think one of the biggest themes of the series is about 
Harry slowly repairing and, in many way, constructing his psyche anew.  
He learns (sometimes slowly) to have friendship, to have a family, to 
have a home, to sacrifice himself for others and to allow others to do 
the same for him, to rely upon other people, to take their feelings 
into account -- all of the things he missed out on when he lived with 
the Dursleys.  Really, the story *starts* with a broken Harry.  It 
doesn't really make thematic sense to me, then, to have the story end 
where it started -- with a Harry that isn't whole.

Now, one can argue that the damage to his psyche done by the Dursley is 
quite minimal given the circumstances, but this speaks directly to 
Harry's inborn (or perhaps *instilled* -- by his mother) resilience and 
inner strength.  Give these qualities, I find it quite realistic and 
in-character that he will be capable of enjoying a reasonably happy, 
normal-ish life someday.  Sure, there will be scars -- but everybody 
*has* scars.  Perhaps the message might be that pain and suffering and 
old wounds are a part of life, but that doesn't preclude one from 
*living*.

> To bring in a
> similar story, he'd have to be like Frodo, broken by his
> experience.

LoTR is, of course, an excellent story, but I see no reason why JKR 
might want to rewrite it.  She gets sued for plagiarism enough as it 
is. ^_~

Laura
http://www.livejournal.com/users/laurahuntley